On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Timothy Kuehn <[email protected]> wrote: > What motivates your suggestion to keep the syntax the same? I think it's > confusing that it looks like a closure but is functionally different from > one. I remember seeing suggestions to change it to "for pattern in > iterator." Besides being less confusing, I think it simply looks nicer.
Changing the syntax should be a separate breaking change, if it's going to happen. It would make it a *lot* harder to land this and I think we need this ASAP. _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
